←back to thread

352 points keithly | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pandatigox ◴[] No.41845382[source]
Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefully not scamming you)!
replies(13): >>41845600 #>>41845764 #>>41846436 #>>41847074 #>>41847971 #>>41848039 #>>41848503 #>>41848894 #>>41848929 #>>41849355 #>>41849576 #>>41850511 #>>41850865 #
crimsoneer ◴[] No.41846436[source]
Slightly worrying that evidence-based dentistry wasn't the default position (though not surprising). I'm always kind of amazed that when I look up the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing, the evidence just...doesn't seem to be there. Let alone all the myriad of dental products from various mouth washes, tooth pastes, brushes and water picks.

How we've ended up regulating medicine to the nth degree, but when it's teeth we're like "oh well, lol", continues to mystify me.

replies(9): >>41846657 #>>41846676 #>>41846685 #>>41846699 #>>41847176 #>>41847273 #>>41847797 #>>41848386 #>>41850321 #
pprotas ◴[] No.41846657[source]
Not directly related to the topic at hand, but it amazes me how Dutch healthcare insurance does not cover dental care by default, and you have to get an extra package for that. As if dental health is not part of my regular health? Why are teeth treated differently from the rest of the body?
replies(7): >>41846872 #>>41847066 #>>41847070 #>>41848357 #>>41848363 #>>41848559 #>>41849928 #
1. trashface ◴[] No.41848357[source]
In the US it is the same. The result is many people do not have dental insurance, and even if you do it often doesn't pay for much. Even our medicare (for old people) doesn't cover it. Thus some people cynically refer to teeth as "luxury bones".
replies(1): >>41848938 #
2. wrycoder ◴[] No.41848938[source]
In my experience (average teeth), dental insurance doesn't pay out enough to cover the premiums, and it's not worth the bother.
replies(1): >>41849164 #
3. cruffle_duffle ◴[] No.41849164[source]
For private dental insurance yes. It almost never makes sense to get private dental insurance and it’s almost always better to pay out of pocket.

I mean think about it from the insurer’s point of view. The only reason you’d ever get “the platinum” dental plan is if you were planning to use it. And it isn’t like you have that many “dental emergencies” if you have healthy teeth. If you don’t have healthy teeth you’d already know it when you pick out the insurance plan, so of course you’d get the upper tier.

The only scenario where it makes sense is if your employer picks up a healthy portion of the premium, in which case you are basically getting dental care subsidized by your employer. In that case you’ll likely come out ahead because you knew in advance pretty much how much dental care you’d need.

The same goes for vision care, really. You know in advance how many contacts, glasses and eye exams you’ll need. It isn’t really an insurable thing. If your employer pays for most of the premium, it’s employer subsidized eyewear & contacts for you!

…of course the math does change a bit when you have to pick the same type of plan for a family. In that case it’s time to bust out a spreadsheet and do the math to see the optimal course.

replies(1): >>41850368 #
4. ipqk ◴[] No.41850368{3}[source]
It's also tax-payer subsidized (i.e. regressive, because it's mostly higher-income people that get dental insurance) because it's money from your employer that you or your employer don't have to pay taxes on.